ccThis mid-range theory focuses on King’s personal system theory and Peplau’s synthesis study of human development. The background study (du Mont, 2007) highlighted a development concept that happens along a continuum and as a chronological series of tasks to be attained. This connection strengthens the validity of the hypothesis for the proposed incorporation of the developmental theory of the self (Peplau) inside the personal system (King) and the bigger conceptual framework. Strengths, limitations and suggested enhancements to Carper’s patterns of knowing
Strengths Nurses have the expertise for empirical research, but what they seemed to lack is awareness on the philosophical underpinnings of their field—and that nursing can be both understood epistemologically and ontologically (Silva et al. , 1995). Carper (1971) motivated nurses to see nursing knowledge from three fundamental patterns of knowing past empirics—esthetics, personal knowledge, and ethics (Carper, 1971)—as a result, gave more freedom to nurses, enabling them to give importance and regain the creativity that they lost.
Another milestone that Carper attained is her then novel perspective into how nursing knowledge can be advanced by the fundamental patterns of knowing—successfully integrating philosophy into the nursing practice (Silva et al. , 1995). Every pattern of knowing in nursing is critical in mastering the discipline, but every pattern is dependent of the others—or Carper’s concept of reciprocally exclusive categories. Therefore, Carper’s pattern of knowing helped nurses become aware that the process of knowing is perpetually emerging, diverse and complex.
Limitations Carper’s model implies a process—how a nurse comes to know (future action)—yet the patterns are depicted already as four end-products (past action), namely, empirics, esthetics, personal knowledge, and ethics. While Carper’s pattern of knowing has an epistemological basis, the theory failed to discuss how knowledge can be determined if it is empiric, esthetic, personal, or ethical (Schumacher & Gortner, 1992).
Another drawback from Carper’s theory is that despite she evidently described that the patterns of knowing interact with one another, she discussed every pattern as a separate unit. Because of this, Carper made a misrepresented and obviously unintentional illusion that the patterns of knowing are reciprocally exclusive, yet actually they are not (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 1991). This unintentional illusion is inopportune since most authors who cite Carper’s work since its publication describe the patterns of knowing as distinct entities (Bournaki & Germain, 1993).
Moreover, the term ‘fundamental’ patterns of knowing appears suitable since Carper declared that the patterns of knowing are not complete, but most scholars’ reference to Carper’s work consider the patterns as already complete. Thus, there seems to be some incongruence between the original intention and the numerous interpretations of Carper’s patterns of knowing (Silva et al. , 1995).